Upcoming repulsions

Spurred by the Mediamarch petition (see below), MWW delved into their website and trawled up a .pdf newsletter which has details of some interesting depth-plumbing by Channel 4, and “More attacks on UK life”.

Alongside the predictable condemnation of The Sex Inspectors, they complain that Channel 4 is planning, with the support of the Science Museum, to broadcast an educational documentary showing the decomposition of a human body, Dust to Dust. No explanation is given why this documentary is deemed by them to be unacceptable.

Cinematic outrages include the 18 certificate given to Anatomy of Hell which shows “explicit sexual acts which have hitherto been illegal, as well as extreme blasphemy”, and also the 15-Rated Kinsey – a film which “attempts to rehabilitate this much discredited ‘father’ of the sexual revolution”. The American sex-researcher and founder of the Kinsey Institute clearly occupies a special place in their Hall of Infamy.

To Kinsey, religion and morality were the hated enemies of sexual freedom. His father is the main religious figure in the film, and with the exception of one scene, he is stereo-typically [sic] portrayed as overly strict, mean spirited and anti-sex. The film implies that sexual deviations of all kinds (especially homosexuality) are wide-spread.

Ban it! Ban it!

16 Responses to “Upcoming repulsions”

  1. Andy L says:

    One wonders how sexual diversity and so called “perversion” isn’t widespread, given Mediawatch’s whole point is that people are doing it too much due to media influences…

    Still, can’t let things like logical fallacy get in the way.

  2. Dan says:

    MWUK often write to local councils to urge them to stop “immoral” films being shown in cinemas.
    Thankfully the councils ignore their cries.

  3. Christopher Shell says:

    How widespread is ‘widespread’?

    The question is whether it is more widespread, or less widespread, since such things started being shown on tv.

  4. Ezekiel 23:20 says:

    What channels are you watching, Chris?

  5. Christopher Shell says:

    Me? TCM Classic films, BBC, Sky Sports Extra, Zee tv, some of the Christian channels. Why? :o)

  6. Bartholomew says:

    The anti-Kinsey hysteria is the work of a notorious crank named Judith Reisman. I wrote about her and her allies on my blog a while back.

  7. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Bartholomew-
    Would it be possible to list (briefly, with evidence if at all possible) which of the ‘slurs’ against Kinsey you believe to be justified and which unjustified? Thanks.

  8. Bartholomew says:

    You can follow the link to my blog.

    But, briefly, there are complaints against Kinsey that can be justified: his sample was limited; as a zoologist rather than an sociologist his handling of the data about human sexuality was far too crude; that when he interviewed a pedophile he should have gone to the police (although this argument is seldom heard in relation to RC confessionals).

    On the other hand, the anti-Kinsey hysteria makes a different set of charges, most of which are ad hominem or based on the alleged “consequencies” of his research. It is alleged that not only did he interview a pedophile, but that he paid for the pedophile to abuse further (there is no evidence for this); that he had a weird sex life of his own (so what?); and that his research led to the sexual revolution and an increase in homosexuality (I’m doubtful, but again, so what?).

    But the most telling point is that none of the religiously-motivated Kinsey-critics want better or more up-to-date research. Instead, they want all such research to be forbidden, and that’s behind the campaign against the movie

  9. Christopher Shell says:

    No-one in their right mind wants research to be discontinued. The more research the better.

    The points I had in mind were his allegedly skewed sample (too many prisoners); his 10% figure for homosexuals; and I do think his sexual amorality may have a bearing on the case. How would one argue that it was irrelevant?

  10. Bartholomew says:

    Well, unless the researcher is completely asexual I don’t see how the accusation of “bias” based on personal sexuality can be avoided.

    By the way, Judith Reisman is quoted in the New Yorker as having said “One doesn’t measure American sexual habits…That’s not a science”. Meanwhile, Peter Spriggs of the Family Research Council was quoted in the Guardian as saying: “We know the formula for sexual health, which is sex within a monogamous, lifelong relationship…Studying permutations of it is an effort like Kinsey’s to change the sexual mores of society, so that what most people consider deviant behaviours look more normal.” These are know-nothings leading the campaign against the film.

  11. Bartholomew says:

    “These are the know-nothings leading the campaign against the film.”

  12. Christopher Shell says:

    I suppose the point is that some personal sexualities are more normal/typical than others.

  13. Bartholomew says:

    So we need a person with a “normal” sexuality to find out what “normal” sexuality is, then we’ll know that the research is OK because the researcher can be classed as normal. Hmmm….

  14. Christopher Shell says:

    Not necessarily. But all things being equal it would be preferable. Psychological factors do play a role in research, and one’s own inner life will seem more normal to oneself than it will to others.

  15. tom p says:

    What one woulod actually need is research carried out by a team of people, then sexual bias could be discounted (unless they were found to be having orgies en masse, of course).
    And anyway, doc, who’s to say what’s normal until large-scale proper academic research (of the sort Kinsey conducted, but better) is conducted.

  16. Christopher Shell says:

    Ther have been plenty of surveys, each widely-trumpeted. I doubt that there are many surprises left to us.